Assembly, the new Northern Ireland Assembly and the Greater London Authority. It discusses common
Bibliographic record
Abstract
this paper. Key issues are the consultation of party members, the mechanism for ranking candidates, and measures to promote the selection of women or ethnic minority candidates. The Constitution Unit found that most parties in EU countries fall between wholly centralised systems as in France where it is determined by the party's central executive, and wholly decentralised systems as in the Austrian People's Party where candidates are chosen through primaries which include both party and non party members. In most countries candidates list are drawn up by the local and/or regional meetings of party members and submitted to national executive bodies for approval In Finland the selection procedure is subject to statutory regulation under the Parliamentary Elections Act 1969, which stipulates that party members must have a vote in candidate selection. The Constitution Unit document summarises this legislation as follows : . a decision on how many party candidates to put forward is taken by the constituency executive . primaries are to be held where the number of candidates put forward exceeds the number of constituency seats (in practice, this rarely occurs) . the nomination of candidates is by district level party branches . the national executive has the power to appoint up to one quarter of candidates to the final list Primaries are rarely held, and candidates are usually nominated by groups of party members and local executive bodies, rather than individual members. Nominations are then put to the parties' national executives for a final decision on which candidates should appear on the list
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.230 | 0.113 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".